Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

HYP1 is 21

For discussion of the practicalities of setting up and operating income-portfolios which follow the HYP Group Guidelines. READ Guidelines before posting
Forum rules
Tight HYP discussions only please - OT please discuss in strategies
Bubblesofearth
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1080
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 432 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461355

Postby Bubblesofearth » November 27th, 2021, 9:03 am

tjh290633 wrote:I am back home now and can share the comparison between my present holdings and a single holding bought at the same time and unchanged, except for corporate actions:

.                                .   Tinkered    1 share
EPIC Share IRR IRR
ADM Admiral Group plc 15.24% 15.54%
AV. Aviva plc 5.66% 5.47%
AZN AstraZeneca plc 16.03% 9.12%
BA. BAe Systems plc 11.06% 5.29%
BATS British American Tobacco plc 7.60% 8.22%
BLND British Land plc 5.41% 5.46%
BLT BHP Billiton plc 6.79% 4.71%
BP. BP plc 8.99% 11.12%
BT.A BT Group plc 8.91% 12.61%
CPG Compass Group plc 12.98% 8.28%
DGE Diageo plc 15.89% 15.89%
GSK GlaxoSmithKline plc 7.84% 7.80%
IGG IG Group Holdings plc -9.28% -8.31%
IMI IMI plc 44.06% 12.32%
IMB Imperial Brands plc 21.28% 14.56%
KGF Kingfisher plc 7.21% 6.77%
LGEN Legal & General Group plc 12.76% 12.70%
LLOY Lloyds Banking Group plc 17.08% 10.39%
MARS Marstons plc 2.31% 4.23%
MKS Marks & Spencer plc 7.12% 11.38%
NG. National Grid plc 13.58% 10.13%
PHP Primary Health Properties plc 4.40% 4.22%
PSON Pearson plc 1.32% 2.49%
RB. Reckitt Benckiser Group plc 11.70% 10.02%
RDSB Royal Dutch Shell plc B 5.85% 5.50%
RIO Rio Tinto plc 31.07% 24.94%
S32 South32 Ltd 11.35% 11.99%
SGRO Segro plc 10.53% -7.51%
SMDS DS Smith plc 13.57% 7.37%
SSE Scottish & Southern Energy plc 10.81% 10.22%
TATE Tate & Lyle plc 12.11% 2.26%
TSCO Tesco plc 6.93% 7.99%
TW Taylor Wimpey plc 4.54% -2.10%
ULVR Unilever plc 10.24% 10.24%
UU. United Utilities Group plc 10.14% 8.97%
VOD Vodafone Group plc 4.73% 6.76%

You can see the differences.

TJH


In % terms how can top-sliced shares do better than non-top sliced ones? surely the remaining holding will perform exactly the same? Or are you buying back into these if/when the SP drops below a certain level?

Also do your calculations include dealing costs? Typically these will be around 1% of the underlying value.

BoE

Bubblesofearth
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1080
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 432 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461360

Postby Bubblesofearth » November 27th, 2021, 9:27 am

1nvest wrote:I suspect it would easiest to simply assume the two styles, non-tweaked and tweaked, might broadly be expected to yield the same outcome on average.

Consider 15 initial equal weighted where each year three drop 33%, three rise 50%, the rest collectively 0%. Rebalancing back to equal weightings and compounding for ten years might be little different to a set of 15 bought and held where three increase three-fold, three halve.



The problem is that's not how markets behave. There are a number of articles out there that demonstrate how the bulk of all stock market gains are driven by a small percentage of the total number of shares, for example;

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/per ... -1.3973200

This means that a rebalancing strategy that takes you out of winning shares is more than likely to take you into duds. It becomes like a ratchet process with ever decreasing returns from a portfolio that focusses more and more on a weighting towards poor performers.

Allowing your portfolio to evolve without interference will inevitably lead to more and more concentration but this should IMO be embraced not feared. The caveat to this, and it alluded to in the link above, is to start with sufficient diversification. Again, referencing the link, 15 shares is not enough. Not enough to capture a representation of future winners and, on the evidence of comments here, not enough to allow investors to be comfortable with the level of concentration that arises. Start with more shares and you both increase the odds of capturing winners and ease the concentration fears.

It's a shame that HYP has had the 15 share philosophy embedded in it, by practice (ref HYP1) if not by dictate.

BoE

moorfield
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3523
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 1546 times
Been thanked: 1402 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461361

Postby moorfield » November 27th, 2021, 9:36 am

Bubblesofearth wrote:In % terms how can top-sliced shares do better than non-top sliced ones? surely the remaining holding will perform exactly the same? Or are you buying back into these if/when the SP drops below a certain level?


Timing , I think - TJH seems to have a knack of selling high and buying low.

moorfield
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3523
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 1546 times
Been thanked: 1402 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461363

Postby moorfield » November 27th, 2021, 9:43 am

Bubblesofearth wrote:

Allowing your portfolio to evolve without interference will inevitably lead to more and more concentration but this should IMO be embraced not feared. The caveat to this, and it alluded to in the link above, is to start with sufficient diversification. Again, referencing the link, 15 shares is not enough. Not enough to capture a representation of future winners and, on the evidence of comments here, not enough to allow investors to be comfortable with the level of concentration that arises. Start with more shares and you both increase the odds of capturing winners and ease the concentration fears.

It's a shame that HYP has had the 15 share philosophy embedded in it, by practice (ref HYP1) if not by dictate.




It depends what risk you are trying to mitigate - the "15 share" idea is not just an HYP one and I believe originates from a 1968 paper entitled "Diversification and the Reduction of Dispersion", by professors John Evans and Stephen Archer at the University of Washington, who argued a portfolio of 15 randomly chosen stocks would have similar risk to the market as a whole - I think! happy to stand corrected. The curve which illustrates that result begins to flatten sharply at 15.

Personally I prefer to work with a minimum number and here follow the advice of Philip Carret:
http://moneyweek.com/the-worlds-greates ... ip-carret/

Never hold fewer than ten shares covering five different fields of business.


I've appropriated "fields of business" to mean "ICB industry classification", so all capital values being equal I should not be holding more than 10% in one share or 20% in one industry, which gives me room to fluctuate between 15-20. I do feel that 25+ begins to be too many, certainly administratively.

Bubblesofearth
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1080
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 432 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461369

Postby Bubblesofearth » November 27th, 2021, 10:11 am

moorfield wrote:
It depends what risk you are trying to mitigate - the "15 share" idea is not just an HYP one and I believe originates from a 1968 paper entitled "Diversification and the Reduction of Dispersion", by professors John Evans and Stephen Archer at the University of Washington, who argued a portfolio of 15 randomly chosen stocks would have similar risk to the market as a whole - I think! happy to stand corrected. The curve which illustrates that result begins to flatten sharply at 15.



This deals with risk as measured by variation (or volatility) not return. So whilst it is true that risk gets close to market levels with 15 randomly chosen shares it does not address the issue of market skewness arising from the predominance of big winners in driving gains. I think this phenomenon is a more recent discovery and maybe why it has taken time to take hold in the same way that risk reduction has?

I find it curious that you, and others, feel an administrative burden with 25+ shares. I have a portfolio of around 60 and very rarely have to do anything.

BoE

MrFoolish
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2288
Joined: March 22nd, 2020, 7:27 pm
Has thanked: 553 times
Been thanked: 1115 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461371

Postby MrFoolish » November 27th, 2021, 10:12 am

moorfield wrote:I do feel that 25+ begins to be too many, certainly administratively.


Now that my holdings are on-line, I don't find there's an awful lot of forced admin to do. OK, you have dividends accumulating, but it makes no difference if they come from 1 stock or 100.

Even with corporate actions, the "do nothing" action tends to be pretty benign, so I suspect you could mostly get away with ignoring them.

I do trade a fair bit, but that's a self-inflicted hobby...

MrFoolish
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2288
Joined: March 22nd, 2020, 7:27 pm
Has thanked: 553 times
Been thanked: 1115 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461374

Postby MrFoolish » November 27th, 2021, 10:23 am

Let me ask, has anyone encountered a corporate action that it would have been seriously, and knowingly, disadvantageous to have ignored? (I don't mean unlucky to have ignored, in that you could have subscribed for more shares and they later went up in value.)

moorfield
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3523
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 1546 times
Been thanked: 1402 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461387

Postby moorfield » November 27th, 2021, 11:11 am

Bubblesofearth wrote:
I find it curious that you, and others, feel an administrative burden with 25+ shares. I have a portfolio of around 60 and very rarely have to do anything.




Actually I hold 23 currently. But my method of tracking actual vs. target portfolio income (which now strictly determines when I do sell something) means I actively keep tabs on all those interims and finals, so 46 events a year.

But this is where I differ from HYP1 which I've always felt was somewhat "hit and hope" with regards to forward financial planning. I like to extrapolate portfolio income to give myself a ballpark estimate of what I am aiming for in 5, 10, 15 years time. As things stand if current portfolio income grows ~6.5% p/a through the combined effect of dividend raises, cuts and reinvestment (without further capital contributions) it will be roughly at the higher rate tax threshold by 2031, and I will be still be younger than 60.

moorfield
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3523
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 1546 times
Been thanked: 1402 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461394

Postby moorfield » November 27th, 2021, 11:30 am

MrFoolish wrote:Let me ask, has anyone encountered a corporate action that it would have been seriously, and knowingly, disadvantageous to have ignored? (I don't mean unlucky to have ignored, in that you could have subscribed for more shares and they later went up in value.)



In hindsight I would have held onto Verizon shares following the Vodafone split, although it's unusual to hold foreign listed shares in an HYP (and hence the need for the Breelander Convention). I am intending to hold onto whatever GSK spawns next year, as I assume HYP1 will be doing too.

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5769
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4098 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461398

Postby 88V8 » November 27th, 2021, 12:03 pm

tjh290633 wrote:I am back home now and can share the comparison between my present holdings and a single holding bought at the same time and unchanged, except for corporate actions:

Perhaps a meaningless metric, but the %ages in the tinkered column sum to 387% and the untinkered column sums to 286%, an 'outperformance' of 35%.
So +1 for the tinker.

MrFoolish wrote:Let me ask, has anyone encountered a corporate action that it would have been seriously, and knowingly, disadvantageous to have ignored? (I don't mean unlucky to have ignored, in that you could have subscribed for more shares and they later went up in value.)


Seriously... no, but I recall at least one rights issue where there was no cash option for unsold rights.

One definitely can make hard work of one's investments, if one itemises every expected divi or coupon, then checks that they have arrived on time and are the correct amount. I never do that.
I do however record them all in a spreadsheet and eyeball one year to another to detect absentees. That said, the only absentees I've ever noticed have been where I've missed something off the spreadsheet.

V8

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461406

Postby Gengulphus » November 27th, 2021, 1:56 pm

MrFoolish wrote:Let me ask, has anyone encountered a corporate action that it would have been seriously, and knowingly, disadvantageous to have ignored? (I don't mean unlucky to have ignored, in that you could have subscribed for more shares and they later went up in value.)

As far as it being knowingly disadvantageous to ignore them is concerned, "open offers" are the main type that springs to mind. They're like rights issues, except that in place of the company issuing separately tradeable "rights" to subscribe for new shares, it issues "entitlements" to subscribe for them. If you don't want to subscribe, you cannot sell your entitlements to anyone else, nor in most cases (*) do you get any monetary compensation for them from the company. The entitlements generally allow one to acquire shares at a discount to the market price (**) and so not using them is generally disadvantageous. In particular, even if one doesn't want any more of the shares concerned, one could subscribe to one's entitlements and near-simultaneously sell the same number of one's existing shares (of course first checking that the net profit from selling at market price and subscribing at subscription price will be enough to pay the selling commission).

As a rough example, Greencoat UK Wind's (UKW's) recent open offer was on a 1-entitlement-per-13-shares basis, with a subscription price of 132p per entitlement, and the prevailing selling share price during the open offer was around 133-134p per share. Anyone with 1000 entitlements could have subscribed to them for a total of £1,320, sold 1000 existing shares (***) for say £1,335 minus say a £10 selling commission and ended up with the same holding and £5 more cash than if they'd done nothing, making doing nothing a known-to-be-disadvantageous option.

Of course, 1000 entitlements would have meant a holding of 13000 UKW shares, worth around £17k, so that particular example meets your "knowingly" requirement, but almost certainly not your "seriously" requirement! I'm pretty sure that examples of open offers exist for which doing nothing would have been more seriously disadvantageous than that, but have little idea how much more seriously disadvantageous they can get in practice - so basically, I'm just indicating that if I wanted to make a proper search for corporate actions it would have been "seriously and knowingly disadvantageous" to ignore, I would choose open offers as the place to start looking.

Incidentally, I'm fairly certain that at some point in the past, I pointed out that HYP1 had such an opportunity to extract a small risk-free profit from an open offer, and that pyad replied to the effect that it simply wasn't the sort of thing HYP1 does. No idea when that happened or which of HYP1's constituents was involved, though.

(*) I have known one exception to that, namely Lloyds' "compensatory open offer" in mid-2009, in which one couldn't sell the entitlements, but those who let them lapse got a "lapsed entitlements" payment from the company, determined in the same way as the "lapsed rights" payment is in a rights issue.

(**) As with rights issues, the subscription price is always at a discount to the prevailing share price at the time the corporate action is announced - but (except in the case of "compensatory open offers") subscribing only involves paying the subscription price, not also giving up the proceeds of selling the rights or the "lapsed rights" payment. Also as for rights issues, subscription prices for open offers are generally set at a sufficient discount to that prevailing share price that the share price is very unlikely to fall below the subscription price during the subscription period (if it were to do so, the fundraising by the company would fail because anyone wanting more shares would buy them on the market rather than subscribing for them).

(***) After November 11th to avoid missing out on a dividend.

Edit:

88V8 wrote:... I recall at least one rights issue where there was no cash option for unsold rights.

Are you certain it wasn't an "open offer" rather than a "rights issue"? Announcements of open offers often look very much like announcements of rights issues, and I know that until I'd really got the differences sorted out in my mind (which took many years), I basically thought of them as two rather inexplicably different names for the same sort of corporate action.

Gengulphus

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2574
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461411

Postby vrdiver » November 27th, 2021, 2:16 pm

Bubblesofearth wrote:The problem is that's not how markets behave. There are a number of articles out there that demonstrate how the bulk of all stock market gains are driven by a small percentage of the total number of shares, for example;

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/per ... -1.3973200

This means that a rebalancing strategy that takes you out of winning shares is more than likely to take you into duds. It becomes like a ratchet process with ever decreasing returns from a portfolio that focusses more and more on a weighting towards poor performers.

If shares only ever moved in one direction, perhaps, but your example doesn't address what quite a few HYPers do.

TJH documents his process very well. When a holding gets overweight, he will trim it and recycle the profits, usually into an existing holding, based on that holding being the most depressed* at the time of the decision.

As these large companies wax and wane, this process can be repeated, in essence working the idea that large companies will go in and out of favour, so redeploying cash from those currently in favour to those currently out of favour, will generate improved returns versus watching a company go up, then come down again whilst doing nothing.

Question is, for these large HYPish companies, are they more likely to shoot the lights out, or just revert after a few years?

I don't have the time or inclination to research the shape of the graphs for HYP companies to see if they do follow this broad-brush oscillation, or whether, once up, up forever and once down, down forever, but my memory of TJH's postings include quite a few references to selling and then buying back the same company, so at an anecdotal level, at least, I am satisfied that HYP will not "take you into duds" versus selling a winner and buying a random new share to replace it.

VRD

*Shorthand for being the top eligible share on his HYPTUS

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8209
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4097 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461460

Postby tjh290633 » November 27th, 2021, 9:01 pm

Arborbridge wrote:This doesn't include all shares you've owned though, only the currently owned.

No, I don't have that information, although I could probably recreate it. There are a few negative returns among them.

TJH

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8209
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4097 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461462

Postby tjh290633 » November 27th, 2021, 9:15 pm

Bubblesofearth wrote:
tjh290633 wrote:I am back home now and can share the comparison between my present holdings and a single holding bought at the same time and unchanged, except for corporate actions:


In % terms how can top-sliced shares do better than non-top sliced ones? surely the remaining holding will perform exactly the same? Or are you buying back into these if/when the SP drops below a certain level?

Also do your calculations include dealing costs? Typically these will be around 1% of the underlying value.

BoE

You forget that top slicing is only part of the picture. Some have been top-sliced and bought back a number of times. Just to take one example. Imperial Tobacco Group was demerged from Hanson in October 1996 at 375p. I added to the holding in 1997, at 417p and 369p, and again in 1998 at 440p. I sold some rights in 2002 and sold some shares later that year at £10.83. Sold more in 2003 at 986p, again in 2007 at £23.23 and again in 2008 at £26.89. Also sold rights in 2008. Topped up twice in 2013, at £22.79 and £22.33. Top-sliced in 2016 at £35.79 then topped up in 2017 at £31.30 and twice more in 2018 at £26.41 and £23.39. Two more top-ups in 2019 and 2021 at £20.71 and £15.84 respectively. Name changed to Imperial Brands in 2016.

That is how that difference occurred. All my transaction costs include dealing charges and stamp duty, where applicable.

TJH

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8209
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4097 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461465

Postby tjh290633 » November 27th, 2021, 9:25 pm

moorfield wrote:
Bubblesofearth wrote:In % terms how can top-sliced shares do better than non-top sliced ones? surely the remaining holding will perform exactly the same? Or are you buying back into these if/when the SP drops below a certain level?


Timing , I think - TJH seems to have a knack of selling high and buying low.

I'm not sure about timing, but I top slice when a share goes overweight, and top-up if it is top of my ranking for topping up. That ranking combines inverse weight and yield, so provided that the sum of those two is the lowest of my holdings, that share will be topped up. Here is my calculation as of last night:

Holding   Weight   Yld   W+Y   Rank
ADM 22 5 27 9
AV. 29 8 37 20
AZN 14 30 44 28
BA. 25 17 42 25
BATS 12 4 16 3
BLND 19 22 41 23
BHP 24 2 26 7
BP. 27 15 42 26
BT.A 16 14 30 11
CPG 1 34 35 15
DGE 35 31 66 34
GSK 26 11 37 21
IGG 13 9 22 4
IMB 5 3 8 1
IMI 36 33 69 36
KGF 18 26 44 29
LGEN 28 7 35 16
LLOY 4 28 32 13
MARS 2 36 38 22
MKS 8 35 43 27
NG. 32 13 45 30
PHP 17 18 35 17
PSON 11 25 36 19
RKT 3 27 30 12
RDSB 21 20 41 24
RIO 7 1 8 2
S32 33 29 62 33
SGRO 34 32 66 35
SMDS 10 23 33 14
SSE 23 12 35 18
TATE 9 16 25 5
TSCO 30 24 54 32
TW. 15 10 25 6
ULVR 6 21 27 10
UU. 31 19 50 31
VOD 20 6 26 8

You will see that IMB is ranked No.1, but in fact it is disqualified because it provides more than 5% of the portfolio income. I also disqualify any share which would cost me more than 5% of the portfolio cost if topped up by 20%, which is an arbitrary limit I have set to avoid spending too much on a single shareholding.

If you look for a topic in HYP Practical called TJH Portfolio Adjustment, viewtopic.php?p=341678#p341678 you will see many examples.

TJH

Bubblesofearth
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1080
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 432 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461466

Postby Bubblesofearth » November 27th, 2021, 9:27 pm

vrdiver wrote:If shares only ever moved in one direction, perhaps, but your example doesn't address what quite a few HYPers do.

TJH documents his process very well. When a holding gets overweight, he will trim it and recycle the profits, usually into an existing holding, based on that holding being the most depressed* at the time of the decision.

As these large companies wax and wane, this process can be repeated, in essence working the idea that large companies will go in and out of favour, so redeploying cash from those currently in favour to those currently out of favour, will generate improved returns versus watching a company go up, then come down again whilst doing nothing.

Question is, for these large HYPish companies, are they more likely to shoot the lights out, or just revert after a few years?

I don't have the time or inclination to research the shape of the graphs for HYP companies to see if they do follow this broad-brush oscillation, or whether, once up, up forever and once down, down forever, but my memory of TJH's postings include quite a few references to selling and then buying back the same company, so at an anecdotal level, at least, I am satisfied that HYP will not "take you into duds" versus selling a winner and buying a random new share to replace it.

VRD

*Shorthand for being the top eligible share on his HYPTUS


Rebalancing will work well during periods when the assets under question mean revert around each other. But mean reversion is not happening for companies that outperform over prolonged periods, i.e. for those companies responsible for the bulk of market gains. Admittedly this is a more marked phenomenon when smaller companies are included but it is evident even for FTSE100 companies. A while ago I looked at the performance of FTSE100 shares from 2000 and found there were 7 or 8 that had multi-bagged 5-10X during that period (about 17 years IIRC). Those companies have not mean reverted, they have not relinquished the bulk of their gains. And they have been responsible for much of what has propped the FTSE100 up over the past couple of decades.

A strategy of top-slicing winners into the most depressed share in a portfolio sounds dangerous to me. Surely there will be times when this money goes into a share that becomes a complete, or nearly complete, failure? Thinking, for example, the banks back during the GFC. They would have been a financial black hole from which there has still hardly been a recovery anywhere near pre-crash levels.

Whilst there is a lot of data presented by TJH it is nevertheless incomplete and thus hard to draw firm conclusions from as regards LTBH vs rebalancing.

BoE

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8209
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4097 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461468

Postby tjh290633 » November 27th, 2021, 9:30 pm

MrFoolish wrote:Let me ask, has anyone encountered a corporate action that it would have been seriously, and knowingly, disadvantageous to have ignored? (I don't mean unlucky to have ignored, in that you could have subscribed for more shares and they later went up in value.)

I would suggest SGRO in 2009, when they had a 12 for 1 rights issue, followed by a 1 for 10 consolidation. Anyone failing to take up those rights would have seen his holding diluted to 1/13 of the original value.

The comments about Verizon demerger from Vodafone above are also relevant.

TJH

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10372
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3602 times
Been thanked: 5229 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461515

Postby Arborbridge » November 28th, 2021, 8:23 am

Bubblesofearth wrote:
A strategy of top-slicing winners into the most depressed share in a portfolio sounds dangerous to me. Surely there will be times when this money goes into a share that becomes a complete, or nearly complete, failure? Thinking, for example, the banks back during the GFC. They would have been a financial black hole from which there has still hardly been a recovery anywhere near pre-crash levels.

Whilst there is a lot of data presented by TJH it is nevertheless incomplete and thus hard to draw firm conclusions from as regards LTBH vs rebalancing.

BoE


This is not a new observation: as I am sure you know, I've made it regularly down the years. However, HYP has strategies to mitigate the risk, and taken together, they do so. Firstly, Pyad believed in buying the biggest in any sector would go a long way to solving the problem. Large companies rarely fail completely and usually adapt or get taken over. Secondly, the portfolio effect comes to the rescue as any nasty occurrence is diluted. Thirdly, the initial investigation should do some checks on the company (here, Pyad was less specific but mentioned five years of rising dividend with some tolerance of static dividend, he also mentioned gearing and I suggest he would have left it to the individual to go further down this checking according to taste) and forthly...well I have a busy day and haven't had breakfast yet!

Anyhow, the point is the risks are mitigated, not least by the probability that the largest companies go out of favour, or have a bad patch, then pick themselves up again and carrying. This is not unlike the TA fanatic who buys on the dips of a rising trend - the HYPer believes the dips are generally part of a long term upward progress for a very large company.

Excuse any errors - must rush.

Arb

funduffer
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1329
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 831 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461528

Postby funduffer » November 28th, 2021, 9:02 am

tjh290633 wrote:
moorfield wrote:
Bubblesofearth wrote:In % terms how can top-sliced shares do better than non-top sliced ones? surely the remaining holding will perform exactly the same? Or are you buying back into these if/when the SP drops below a certain level?


Timing , I think - TJH seems to have a knack of selling high and buying low.

I'm not sure about timing, but I top slice when a share goes overweight, and top-up if it is top of my ranking for topping up. That ranking combines inverse weight and yield, so provided that the sum of those two is the lowest of my holdings, that share will be topped up.

TJH


I think Terry's method has the tendency to sell high and buy low built into it. If a share has risen in value, then the yield will tend to drop, and the capital value will start to dominate the portfolio - hence the decision to top-slice and selling at a 'high'.

When topping up a share, the share price will be depressed, and the yield will be high, usually because dividends are less volatile than share price. Hence the re-balancing purchase will tend to be buying 'low'.

Obviously there are situations where top-slicing is followed by further price rises and buying into a depressed share leads to further falls and maybe reduced dividends. These are the risks one takes. But since top-slicing/topping-up is only carried out with a fraction of the holdings not all the gains are foregone, nor are all the losses incurred. All one needs is for the method to 'work' most of the time.

Overall, I am not that surprised by Terry's attractive IRR, and I think it is not very difficult to replicate in anyone else's HYP.

It is a very clever, simple re-balancing method in my opinion.

FD

1nvest
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4323
Joined: May 31st, 2019, 7:55 pm
Has thanked: 680 times
Been thanked: 1316 times

Re: HYP1 is 21

#461622

Postby 1nvest » November 28th, 2021, 2:56 pm

Again I suspect either way (tweaked/buy-n-hold) broadly works out much the same. On the costs front tweaking incurs higher costs/activity but could reduce risk such as if your largest non-tweaked holding was taken over for cash that induced a large capital gains tax liability.

Halfway might be a reasonable choice. When a holding had risen to 2 times the average holdings value, sell down half of those gains (rebalance it to being 1.5 times the median). Which I believe is something along the lines of what Terry does with his TJH HYP. Somewhat like a combination of both styles.


Return to “HYP Practical (See Group Guidelines)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests